A small question about PETA's insane leader

Re: A small question about PETA's insane leader

Just a guess, but maybe she was trying to say that she opposes people getting pregnant when there are so many orphaned children in the world -- equating it with the practice of purebred dog-breeders v. pet adoption from a shelter.
What do you think?

I doubt she meant that since she had killed and PETA is killing many healthy and adoptable animals. Infact they are against animals as pets.

doing a little research...that was a quote from newkirk during an april of 2003 interview with the new yorker magazine.

I was only able to find an abstract of the story on the new yorker site, without that part included....

the only other references were in blogs about abortions and such.


so.....without knowing the context in which it was said......

I think you are misrepresenting the facts.
source

Of course, since you've thoroughly checked out the veracity of that story, I'm sure you're well aware that the out-of-context and distorted version that's spread all over is the work of a group that calls itself The Center for Consumer Freedom-- that being a front for a bunch of wonderful people from the alchohol, tobacco, and restaurant industries. Real good guys like Monsanto and Philip Morris...

Besides PETA, they also oppose real jerks like Mother Against Drunk Driving. A spokesperson says that CCF's enemies are "just about every consumer and environmental group, legislator or doctor who raises objections to things like pesticide use, genetic engineering of crops or antibiotic use in beef and poultry." Nice people that you oblige by peddling their story.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom#Affiliated_Organizations

Actually I found that out (PETA killing animals) on this site http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

But that's not part of my question I mean what sort sane context could you put that quote in, she says purebred human instead of child.

what's your agenda?

not really getting your point...is anyone?...anyone?

how can anyone even want to make a guess as to the context, when you can't seem to provide it. Do a little research and come back with the entire story.

It appears to have been simply a poor choice of words. Instead of "purebred human baby", perhaps she should have said "pure-blood human baby". Maybe that would have caused less confusion -- I doubt it would have caused any less outrage, though.

Well, that's interesting-- it really is the first time I've seen anything about PETA doing euthanizations that wasn't propaganda spread by CCF. Normally everyone links to that 'petakillsanimals.com" site (or one of their other propaganda sites-- they have several), which somewhere in the fine print says it's by CCF.

Anyway, I'll read that article you linked. I still doubt it's the horror story people make it out to be, but who knows.

Chai I don't have an agenda and every website I visited containing that quote is among other quotes from or is in the actual article its from.

The article says that this is her reason that she was sterilized at 22. I still don't understand what she meant by it, I mean how can you have a NON-purebred (or NON-pureblood) human.

purebred human baby = biological baby (not adopted)

If that's the case why hasn't she adopted a child?

Perhaps because she doesn't want children?

Is there a law I'm unaware of stating women need to have or adopt a child?

The reason I ask about an agenda is because I'm still puzzled about what/why you are asking the question....

You take a quote from a magazine article from 4 years ago, by itself, with no background, and ask people to tell you what it means.

Then, you go off about PETA killing animals, and Newkirk and her choice not to have children.

What exactly is your point in all this? I mean, it might be an interesting conversation, but the only thing I can glean from this is that you dislike Newkirk and PETA.

That in itself isn't much to talk about.

"Of course, since you've thoroughly checked out the veracity of that story, I'm sure you're well aware that the out-of-context and distorted version that's spread all over is the work of a group that calls itself The Center for Consumer Freedom "

Well, YOU clearly haven't been bothered to do your homework, at least not any that isn't in total agreement with your cult dogma.
Otherwise you'd know that the CCF are hardly the only or first people to bring this fact up, that they're figures are based on solid, tangible evidence like publically availible tax records which ANYONE can access.
Instead of falling back on straw man and ad hominem, why don't you actually try disproving their numbers and facts? Simple: You can't.

"that being a front for a bunch of wonderful people from the alchohol, tobacco, and restaurant industries. Real good guys like Monsanto and Philip Morris... "

No, they're a non-profit. Funny how you don't call out PETA for establishing anti-scientific fronts like the PCRM, which PETA runs so that they can publish flagrantly false health information designed to manipulate people into adopting a vegan lifestyle.
Also, as someone who doesn't buy into organic industry propaganda, I don't view Monsanto as the Boogeyman. Try harder.

"Besides PETA, they also oppose real jerks like Mother Against Drunk Driving."

Sooo, you know NOTHING about MADD (modern day prohibition group) or why the CCF oppose them (MADD tried to lower the legal blood-alc level to a point where one beer would get you arrested), you just want to prey on people's emotions and ignorance by pretending the people the CCF targets are sacrosanct.

"A spokesperson says that CCF's enemies are "just about every consumer and environmental group, legislator or doctor who raises objections to things like pesticide use, genetic engineering of crops or antibiotic use in beef and poultry."

Would sure love to know who this conveniently anonynmous "spokesperson" is, because instead of bringing up any valid points about the CCF, they're appealing to the ignorance and ignorance-fueled emotionalism of the anti-science Left by spouting the same baseless lies and hysteria.
Basically, your quote is akin to trying to discredit someone by saying they believe the Earth is round.

"Nice people that you oblige by peddling their story.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom#Affiliated_Organizations"

And yet here you are, peddling the asinine lies and propaganda of the Jon Stauber and Sheldon Rampton two-man con team, the same pathetic liars that have made a career out of anti-science, pro-animal Rights/organic industry lunacy.
Since you clearly can't be bothered to do your homework, try leaving this to the Grown Ups.

"Well, that's interesting-- it really is the first time I've seen anything about PETA doing euthanizations that wasn't propaganda spread by CCF."

Probably because you live in a solipsistic fantasy world.

"Normally everyone links to that 'petakillsanimals.com" site (or one of their other propaganda sites-- they have several), which somewhere in the fine print says it's by CCF."

What do you mean "fine print"? They make no bones about the fact that they';re the CCF, vis-a-vis PETA's constant attempts to obfuscate their antiscience front group PCM, or their many ties to terrorist organizations like the ALF.

Clearly you don't have much of a grasp on reading comprehension, otherwise you might've noticed how those numbers are sourced directly from US Government tax records which are open to the public, NOT fabricated by the CCF, as you try to claim like the disengenous little cultist you are.

"Anyway, I'll read that article you linked. I still doubt it's the horror story people make it out to be, but who knows. "

Yeah, you've made it excessively obvious you judge the world by emotion and first assumption, as opposed to anything objective or empirical.